PlayStation 3 Super Slim isn't worth the upgrade | VentureBeat

Sony just released its fifth iteration of the PlayStation 3 game console (affectionately named the “Super Slim.”) This new version is basically the same as the original PS3 that debuted in 2006 and is almost technologically identical to the Slim that hit stores in 2009, though it is not backwards compatible for PlayStation 2 titles. Sony will offer three models of the Super Slim: the 250GB (of internal storage) model ($270, tested in this review), the 500GB model ($300, due out Oct. 30 in North America, and currently available in Europe and Japan), and a 12GB Flash memory-only model that’s only available in Europe.

So, how is the Super Slim? It’s ugly and clunky, but it might have a redeeming quality or two.

The difference in this instance is people can buy the new model of PS3 because they choose to do so. They do not have to make a purchase because previous versions of the console kept dying and they were forced to pay for a new model in order to have a modicum of reliability.

Let's see...I have an 'old' slim and it works fine. Would it be wise for me to go buy this, 'super' slim for 299.99 that doesn't do ANYTHING my 'old' slim can't do????? NO! Wow it amazes me how willing people are to just through their money at things. If you don't have a ps3 then this by all means get one. If you only have the FAT ps3 then get one. Otherwise you're just wasting your money to on this thing. Don't do it. Use you money on games.

Original PS3, Big super car premium build materials chrome trimmings all the options, costs a ton to produce sold at a loss but great value for money. Power steering (heat sensitive buttons) and automatic doors.

Old PS3 slim, Sports car good build quality less quality materials, most of the options, power steering removed although still with automatic doors. Smaller profile and more fuel efficient.

Unless size is a key deciding factor, why on hell would I downgrade my PS3 "Fat" to a hatchback with manual clip door instead of an automated one. An argument could be made for the old PS3 slim having a more premium design (not build) from the fat one. But am sorry the new PS3 is fisher-price compared to the original

Personally, if you have a working PS3, there is no reason to buy another. I had a 60gb that has the start of the YLOD (the RSX is starting to disconnect from the motherboard) so I bought a slim and i felt that the original is just way better. Apart from the BC, it just seems to run alot smoother for me, less buggy too (I don't know how but ok).

Dont get why you would upgrade if you have a perfectly fine ps3 already. I get why you would buy it if you didn't have a ps3, I know I would but this article seems pointless. People don't need a website to tell them if they should upgrade or not. If you want something you buy it because you want it, especially when it comes to a new console redesign.

This isn't really an upgrade, and nobody is pitching it as an upgrade either.

There are some benefits (larger HDD, smaller form factor, lower power consumption, supposedly quieter than previous models) and also some cons (sliding top loader drive may not be to everyone's taste, personally I like my current slim better, build quality may feel a bit cheaper).

I don't know why this reviewer keeps referring the PS3 slim .v2 as in UPGRADE, I think a better word should be UPDATE. In term of hardware quality expenses, the orig PS3/K. Kutaragi version is still of the highest HW quality and most expensive to build, which is why they made ALL these cheaper versions over the years with removed parts(*EE+GS chips, multi-SD card slots, 2 usb slots) & capabilities(*Linux support, OS changes) here and there.

These PS3 "UPDATES", not upgrades, was never for the expense of the consumer, it was for expense of Sony. This is why they won't lower the cost. Build and cheaper console & not change the cost and the profit margins would much better.

I don't really consider the slimmer version an upgrade, it's a cost saver for Sony. It looks a bit like the Atari Jr from the 80's and not having a disk slot is a bit of a turn off for me personally. I have a fat PS3, but if I needed another one it would be the first slim for me.

Ugly and Clunky? Wow what an exaggeration. You may not like how it looks but it is not ugly. The only thing clunky about it is the Blu-Ray drive which slides open.(the plus side is that you can open it while PS3 is off!)

I wouldn't call it a downgrade. It is just worse because now the only ps3 you can get at the shops are these ones, and they are more expensive for some reason, despite being cheaper to make.

It doesn't really bother me, just that I have a "fat" PS3 and a normal slim, and the slim is playing up. So I'm going to need a new PS3 soon (only use my fat for Backwards compatibility, I worship that thing).

I feel sorry for those in Europe that get the 12gb lol. Luckily it is only partial installs.

worthless article.... in the first place, all PS3 are the same except they become smaller and lighter (other than they keep removing stuffs as they are being compared to the one they first release) so none of them are even really being an upgrade if i would to say. hardware refresh from these hardware makers are pretty normal in the entire life cycle. it is really dumb to keep buying the same console which does the same thing across over and over again. if one likes to upgrade might well go play a PC. you can upgrade it every 6-12mths to keep it top notch. it is better than any consoles out there. really dumb article imo...

As much I love my PS3, this new PS3 super slim is just ugly. I dont get what they were trying to do with it. Were they high, while designing it? If you wanted it to be cheap just should had gone for a PS2 slim type of look and material.

My 40GB phat ps3 suddenly stopped reading any disc i put in, the clock keeps on spinning but nothing happens, i sense its the laser, unfortunately its not in warranty, either i have to replace the drive or get a new one, this might be a good bet

sure its ugly looking, sony is surely losing on aesthetics with every iteration, i dont know why

the 500 GB model is worth it. It will be nice to get all my downloadable games and DLC on the system at once . I have gotten more than 250 gb on my slim that i have gotten over the last 6 years. I now have one ps3 for the living room original fat, one for the game room (super slim)and one for the bedroom.

It's not an upgrade. Don't see why people are looking at it as that. its just a new model of the PS3. Sony isn't Apple, they are not going to release slightly upgrade systems every year.....

A slim just allows Sony to sell the console cheaper and sparks interest in the SAME product again, its nothing more than that. Its not worth upgrading because if you own a PS3, you already have what this offers....

This is pointless to even be arguing, any hardware that can't perform to the abilities that it did upon release is a downgrade. The PS3 Fat has PS2 backwards compatibility and the new iterations have lost such features upon release. The original Wii could play GC games and the current version cannot, that's a downgrade as well! A proper example of an upgrade but keeping things familiar to the original hardware design would be the 3DSXL. It does everything the original does and better, with added battery, better 3d, larger screens and added button functionality...